Congrats to Boeing! Was hoping this one would go to Airbus, but hey, every new aircraft in the sky is a win in my book!

"Fuel savings compared to Icelandair's present fleet of Boeing 757 is more than 20 percent per seat," the airline said."

So they are gonna use the MAX8 and 9 as a direct 757 replacement. Being not very knowledgeable on this subject and their route-structure; can the MAX replace the 757 on all their routes without restrictions?

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 1):So they are gonna use the MAX8 and 9 as a direct 757 replacement. Being not very knowledgeable on this subject and their route-structure; can the MAX replace the 757 on all their routes without restrictions?

If the 737MAX has 400+ mile range greater than the -800 it could replace the B757 on most of Icelandair flights. (Example KEF-SFB)

Looking at their route map, the MAX can easily cover all of Europe from Iceland. As for their US destinations, SEA, DEN and SFB will be pushing it but doable, as they are all at around 3200nm range (IIRC 3600nm is the marketing spec range, 3200nm should be a realistic range with profitable payload and winds)

I wonder if this will affect Icelandic Express ? Not sure if they are a subsidiary of Icelandair. Anyway, Express do a summer seasonal weekly (I think) 757 KEF-YWG. But this route would certainly be within the range of any version of the MAX.

Might surprise some, but Manitoba (where YWG is) is home to the largest Icelandic population outside Iceland itself.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 7):Looking at their route map, the MAX can easily cover all of Europe from Iceland. As for their US destinations, SEA, DEN and SFB will be pushing it but doable, as they are all at around 3200nm range

If SEA-KEF is pushing it, then DEN-KEF is a no go. DEN is at 5,400ft/1,650m of altitude.
If FI is still flying to DEN in 5 years, they might keep a couple of 757's in the fleet or order something more capable.

Quoting JU068 (Reply 9):
In another thread it was stated that these will not be used as a direct 757 replacement but instead they will be opening new cities and adding frequencies.

I read that too but find it doubtful for a couple of reasons: 1) This would more than double FI's pax fleet size. That's a huge jump. 2) 20% fuel savings is too much for the old 757 to overcome. They may replace all but a few 757's which will have comonality with the cargo 757's. That may be enough to justify keeping a few pax 5t's in the fleet.

Iceland Express went bankrupt last month. WOWair is the new airline in Iceland.

Anyway, congrats to FI on this order! Has been in the works for over 2 years. And to answer some of yourq questions: no, the 737 is not a direct replacement for the 757 on American routes, at least not over 6 hrs. It will replace sme of the older 757s to Europe though.

If Boeing would have built new jigs when it was obvious the B757 was going to need replacement,
a B75NEO would have been a supreme performer. And certainly the orders would still be coming in,
whoever made the decision to kill the B757.... Cost Boeing billions of dollars..... what a mistake.

Quoting xdlx (Reply 16):If Boeing would have built new jigs when it was obvious the B757 was going to need replacement,
a B75NEO would have been a supreme performer. And certainly the orders would still be coming in,
whoever made the decision to kill the B757.... Cost Boeing billions of dollars..... what a mistake.

Because an anonymous contributor to an aviation forum is much better informed than Boeing management?

If what you say is actually true we would have seen an 757neo, but unfortunately it isn't, hence; no 757neo

Quoting brilondon (Reply 14):Quoting lostsound (Reply 12):
There is no direct 757 replacement so I assume Icelandair will be forced to order the A330-200 or 788 in order to reach those Pacific Coastal cities.

They have nine aircraft with a line number of 900 or more, putting them into the early 200s.
airfleets.net lists 20 active 757s for FI, four of which are freighters. So essentially, over half of their fleet is twelve years old or less. The oldest one, I think, is a 1990 vintage (TF-FII - which I've flown on). They're not especially old.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 11):If SEA-KEF is pushing it, then DEN-KEF is a no go. DEN is at 5,400ft/1,650m of altitude.

DEN is only a problem if they run into a performance limit...given the gianormous new runway that DEN put in to alleviate exactly this kind of situation, it's probably not going to be an issue. High altitudes don't limit your range unless they also kill off your payload. Even at that altitude, a 737MAX or 757 can usually get out at MTOW if there's enough runway.

Quoting xdlx (Reply 16):And certainly the orders would still be coming in,
whoever made the decision to kill the B757.... Cost Boeing billions of dollars..... what a mistake.

The customers made that decision...they didn't order any for years despite tons of effort on Boeing's part.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 11):If SEA-KEF is pushing it, then DEN-KEF is a no go. DEN is at 5,400ft/1,650m of altitude.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 29):DEN is only a problem if they run into a performance limit...given the gianormous new runway that DEN put in to alleviate exactly this kind of situation, it's probably not going to be an issue. High altitudes don't limit your range unless they also kill off your payload. Even at that altitude, a 737MAX or 757 can usually get out at MTOW if there's enough runway.

KEF-SEA is 3614 miles. KEF-DEN is 3562 miles. We can see here that SEA is the further outstation.

So of all of the legs here of KEF-SEA/SEA-KEF and KEF-DEN/DEN-KEF, we have to remember here that is most likely will be the westbound legs of these are the most difficult, since they will be going contra-tradewinds. Even with the hot/high and long runway at DEN, I would think that the SEA-KEF leg of these segments would most stretch the capabilities of this bird.

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 25):Interesting. Why did they move there and not Nova Scotia or Newfoundland? Halifax is a nice city, I felt quite at home there...

IIRC my Manitoba history correctly (no guarantee) the Icelandic immigrants were granted more or less self-government over a chunk of territory, their own laws, courts, and the ability to run schools in their own language. As time passed and inter-marriage became more common, there was less advantage in that, so the area around Gimli became a regular part of Manitoba. But you still hear a fair bit of Icelandic spoken on the street. On the August long weekend, they also have Islendingdagurrin, which is a celebration of Icelandic culture, etc., etc.

Your flag indicates Norway. I am thinking you liked Halifax because in some way it resembles Bergen or Tromso...been in both.

The 737-8MAX are a surprise. The later 738-8MAX should have 757 range (not at EIS, but after PIPs), so it will be fine for Icelandair's routes.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 1):"Fuel savings compared to Icelandair's present fleet of Boeing 757 is more than 20 percent per seat," the airline said."

Thus the 737-9MAXs will be effective 752 replacements. Not initially, but I would be eventually.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 1):can the MAX replace the 757 on all their routes without restrictions?

Not the 737-9MAX. It doesn't have the range and at EIS neither could the 737-8MAX. Since Icelandair operates on a connecting model, they must be very sensitive to the cost per seat. I expect, once the MAX has proven itself, that we will see the order to phase out the 752s. They simply burn too much fuel per seat. Note: Since the MAX doesn't even enter service until 2017, I'm talking a 2019 time frame for the order which means replacement by 2025 or so (perhaps a few years later). In other words, I'm not predicting an imminent end to the 752 at Icelandair.

Quoting JU068 (Reply 9):In another thread it was stated that these will not be used as a direct 757 replacement but instead they will be opening new cities and adding frequencies.

Not initially. But long term I would bet on 752 replacement.

Quoting LGWflyer (Reply 31):Quoting g500 (Reply 18):
Icelandair's 757s are not going anywhere. And why should they, perfect size and range for most of their routes. They'd be crazy to part with them

Agreed, they're newer ones are not that old and can probably last another good 15 years or so.

But the fuel bills will kill Icelandair. The actual replacement will probably start in 2021 or 9 years from now. With the higher 752 maintenance and fuel bills, Icelandair would be 'crazy' to delay the start of replacement more than about 2 years from that date. So the 752s will be around a bit... But by 2027, Icelandair should have rotated their fleet.

Quoting LGWflyer (Reply 31):Some of their older 757's are above 20 years old, and the newer ones are only around 10 years.

Maintenance bills for the 752 after the 3rd D-check have been heavy from what I've read. So if Icelandair does have 20+ year old 752s, it is time to replace them earlier than what I proposed. However, they need the 737-8MAX range, so I'm not sure what they could do other than pay for the maintenance.

While I'm happy that Icelandair has started on the path to fleet modernization I really wish Boeing would realize that their european competitor is really good at exploiting gaps in their product line. With the 757 out of production there will be a huge gap between the 737 line and the 787 that someone is going to step in and fill. They really need to begin thinking about creating a narrow body airplane based on the 787 to serve as a direct 757 replacement and fill that enormous size gap.

As for the current order, who in their right mind would want to spend up to 9 hours on a 737? Don't get me wrong, I like the 737 as much as the next guy, but I'd never be willing to spend 9 hours on one, so, I hope that FI does the smart thing and restricts the use of these airplanes to routes within europe.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 7):Looking at their route map, the MAX can easily cover all of Europe from Iceland. As for their US destinations, SEA, DEN and SFB will be pushing it but doable, as they are all at around 3200nm range (IIRC 3600nm is the marketing spec range, 3200nm should be a realistic range with profitable payload and winds)

SEA, DEN, and SFB all are at the edge of the 757 range. The weight limits with Icelandairs relatively dense configuration would be significant.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 37):While I'm happy that Icelandair has started on the path to fleet modernization I really wish Boeing would realize that their european competitor is really good at exploiting gaps in their product line. With the 757 out of production there will be a huge gap between the 737 line and the 787 that someone is going to step in and fill. They really need to begin thinking about creating a narrow body airplane based on the 787 to serve as a direct 757 replacement and fill that enormous size gap.

I'm not sure I understand your point. The A321NEO to A350-800 gap in payload is even bigger than the gap between the 737 MAX-9 and 787-8. It appears no manufacturer is interested in the 250-300,000lbs MTOW capacity.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 37):As for the current order, who in their right mind would want to spend up to 9 hours on a 737? Don't get me wrong, I like the 737 as much as the next guy, but I'd never be willing to spend 9 hours on one, so

From a passenger perspective, what would be the difference between being in a 737 cabin or a 757 cabin? And how did our parents and grandparents ever travel in those DC-8s and 707s?

Quoting point2point (Reply 32):KEF-SEA is 3614 miles. KEF-DEN is 3562 miles. We can see here that SEA is the further outstation.

No, the range of Boeing airplanes is in nautical miles and kilometers. The distances you sited are statute miles. The distance from KEF to SEA is 3148 nm, well inside the advertised 3600 nm range of the two MAX models.

DEN has one runway that is 16,000' long, all the others are 12,000' long. The B-737-8MAX/-9MAX should have no problem getting off the ground at DEN and go east bound (less fuel needed, generally, going east bound due to prevailing tail winds) with a profitable payload of pax and cargo.

Not really... a lot of the UA 757 TATL routes are an hour or so longer. That said, I think based on what I've seen they'd still be a big stretch for a 738 MAX without major improvements (which may be what Lightsaber is anticipating). 3100 nm is about 800 nm more than what a 737-800 can comfortably do today on the westbound leg of an east-west route at Gulf Stream latitudes. The MAX should erase about half of that gap. Where is the other half going to come from?

I think those three routes (and MSP) will be 757 for a long time to come. The 737 MAX (of either length) will have no trouble doing the Northeastern routes (or any of the Europe routes), and it will take awhile to replace all the 757s.

Honestly it seems weird so many of you are arguing how far the MAX will fly. None of us know. Boeing can talk about what they want out of the aircraft, but no one will know until the aircraft actually flies.

As connies4ever mentioned, there was a huge demand for immigrants to settle the prairies in the early parts of the 20th century, so land was basically given away. Cultural groups tended to settle in one area at a time.

The grandparents on my mother's side settled with the huge Ukrainian population in Northern Saskatchewan.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 37):With the 757 out of production there will be a huge gap between the 737 line and the 787 that someone is going to step in and fill.

Boeing still sells the 767, which seems to me to be a great gap filler with a bit of NEO/MAX type treatment. The big fly in the ointment is probably engines since all the good stuff seems to be either above or below the thrust range...with the closest being the GenX-2B's on the 748.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 44):Boeing still sells the 767, which seems to me to be a great gap filler with a bit of NEO/MAX type treatment. The big fly in the ointment is probably engines since all the good stuff seems to be either above or below the thrust range...with the closest being the GenX-2B's on the 748.

It shouldn't be a big problem to put the GEnx-2B engines on the B-767. The B-747 and B-767 have sharded the same eninges for a very long time now.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41):DEN has one runway that is 16,000' long, all the others are 12,000' long. The B-737-8MAX/-9MAX should have no problem getting off the ground at DEN and go east bound (less fuel needed, generally, going east bound due to prevailing tail winds) with a profitable payload of pax and cargo.

With more runway comes the danger of exceeding the tire speed limit before getting to takeoff airspeed.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 45):
It shouldn't be a big problem to put the GEnx-2B engines on the B-767. The B-747 and B-767 have sharded the same eninges for a very long time now.

They are a few thousand pounds heavier so that could negate some benefit, but the increase in efficiency and some al-li in the structure might make up for that.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 44):Boeing still sells the 767, which seems to me to be a great gap filler with a bit of NEO/MAX type treatment.

The 767 has the wrong cross-section in today's world, and also has severely outdated wings. Even with new engines it would be eclipsed by the 788's better cargo-hauling ability and volumetric efficiency.

The A330 and 737 were easier to re-engine because they had well-chosen cross-sections and relatively modern wing designs.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 37):who in their right mind would want to spend up to 9 hours on a 737? Don't get me wrong, I like the 737 as much as the next guy, but I'd never be willing to spend 9 hours on one,

You say you wouldn't want to spend 9 hours on a 737 but you don't mention the 757 which has the same fuselage cross-section. I don't understand why you seem to find the 757 acceptable for a 9 hour flight but not the 737. Why would passengers notice any difference, assuming the same seat pitch on both?

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 1):can the MAX replace the 757 on all their routes without restrictions?

I have my doubts for the "deep" North America missions - SEA, DEN, SFB. The rest of the route network should be covered fine. I expect the MAX's to start replacing all the EU routes first, and once later-build MAX models come in, the US routes.

Here's a map with the marketing spec range of 3600nm and an rough-estimate "realistic" range of 3200nm @KEF:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 34):The later 738-8MAX should have 757 range (not at EIS, but after PIPs), so it will be fine for Icelandair's routes.

It will get there, I agree, but it won't have the 757's pax capacity. Yes, CASM will be much lower, but rising fuel prices may eat up that advantage over time. I don't know if a 737-8 sized plane will be profitable enough... time (and fuel price) will tell...

Quoting iahmark (Reply 49):I guess they could get a few frames (4-5) of the 737 MAX 7 (range is 3800 nm), this one should cover all the really long routes like a champ >> ORD, ANC, MCO, DEN, SEA

See above...I'm already doubting the 737-8's capability to perform those missions profitably enough, so I think the -7 will be much too small to make enough revenue, despite having the range.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 48):You say you wouldn't want to spend 9 hours on a 737 but you don't mention the 757 which has the same fuselage cross-section. I don't understand why you seem to find the 757 acceptable for a 9 hour flight but not the 737. Why would passengers notice any difference, assuming the same seat pitch on both?

Honestly, I wouldn't want to spend nine hours on anything smaller than a 767-300. I realize that 99.999 percent of people out there would fly to Hawaii on a piper cub if they thought they could save a dollar, but for me size equals comfort. The fuselage cross section may be the same but the 757 feels bigger inside. It feels like there's more metal around me and when I'm confronting the specter of tail winds strong enough to knock an A340 around, the more metal around me, the more comfortable I'm going to feel on that airplane.

The more fuel goes up in price, the faster Icelandair will drop the 752s due to the 20% drop in per seat fuel burn the MAX offers.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 51):I realize that 99.999 percent of people out there would fly to Hawaii on a piper cub

And that is the market airlines must deal with. I want frequency for business as it increases the hours I spend with my children. I wouldn't fly the piper cub, but schedule matters. Do I make that event with the kids? A few hours difference in departure or arrival time can mean a bunch.

There will be size. It will just serve the trunk routes. I'm excited about the MAX as it opens up routes with the 737-8MAX that are not economical with the 752. There is just going to be more profit potential with the MAX than the old workhorse. A great plane...

Quoting stlgph (Reply 52):With the new planes - will undoubtedly see a new cities coming in the next couple of years. Can't see to see where Icelandair goes next.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 45):It shouldn't be a big problem to put the GEnx-2B engines on the B-767. The B-747 and B-767 have sharded the same eninges for a very long time now.

1) The GEnX 2b has a 105" fan. The PW4000 models used on the 767 and 747 are 94"and the CF6 is 93". The GEnX 2b had to be shrunk from the 1b because the 747 did not have enough under-wing clearance. The 747 carried the PW4000 on a downward-slanting pylon but must carry the GEnX on a straight pylon in order to provide enough ground clearance. I do not think that the 767 has enough ground clearance to fit a GEnX-2b.

2) The 767 has other issues than its engine. It needs a new wing designed with CFD if it's going to be marketed as an adequate replacement for the current 767. By the time all that modification is done in addition to the new engine, it will be an expensive upgrade that will compete with the 787 more than it competes with any Airbus model other than the A332.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 33):Your flag indicates Norway. I am thinking you liked Halifax because in some way it resembles Bergen or Tromso...been in both

Thank you for the history lesson, Connies 4ever. Yes, Halifax felt very Norwegian, plus it is a nice city of its own too. That said, I fell in love with Canada a few years ago when visiting the country, beautiful country and great people - everyone were so friendly and easygoing - you are lucky to be Canadian

If FI install a 180-seat two-class config on their B737 Max 9 they will pretty much offer same capacity as the B752. I'd say slimline seats in Y is a given.

Quoting sancho99504 (Reply 57):It may have the same cross section, but the 757 has as a taller, slighter wider cabin than the 737. It gives the 757 more shoulder, which makes mountains of difference.

"Slightly" = 0.1". I don't think any normal human being is capable of noticing that. The 757 and 737 use the same seat triple width, the same aisle width, the same trim-to-trim total width (within 0.1"), and have the same widest point (just above the armrest).

As to the new 737's and NA destinations vs the current 757's and Icelandair using their North Atlantic hub, I guess that the new 737's would have enough range, even in strong North Atlantic headwinds Westbound in the winter and reserves during the summer with thunderstorms for most USA/Canadian destinations to make the new 737's workable.

Wow, the 767 is my favorite cross section, alone or with another person the 767 is the best. Just flew one this week, another great flight. Not sure why there was no evident demand for newer versions of this great airliner.

I fully expect FI to keep their 757's longer than most other current carriers will, look how long they held onto their DC-8's.

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 56):If FI install a 180-seat two-class config on their B737 Max 9 they will pretty much offer same capacity as the B752. I'd say slimline seats in Y is a given.

According to the press release the max 9 will be configured with 172 seats (their 752s have 183 seats).

The Max 8 will have 153 seats.

That may of course change over time. First delivery is expected in 2018.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 59):As to the new 737's and NA destinations vs the current 757's and Icelandair using their North Atlantic hub, I guess that the new 737's would have enough range, even in strong North Atlantic headwinds Westbound in the winter and reserves during the summer with thunderstorms for most USA/Canadian destinations to make the new 737's workable.

I don't know why so many posters imagine that this order is a fleet replacement. It isn't. It is a gradual fleet expansion. And gradual retirement of some of the older 757 when enough 737 have been delivered.

Insiders tell me that there are no plans to phase out the 757 prior to 2025 at which time the newest birds will be 22 years old. They will of course use their longer range planes on their longer sectors and vise verse.

Nobody knows what will replace the 757 on the longer FI routes to North America. And we may not know for another ten years. Maybe they will soldier on way beyond 2025, that's something they could decide in ten years time.

This dozen new 737 will primarily be used on FI's European destinations. Currently FI serves 22 European destinations, but they are adding new destinations all the time, so nobody knows how many there will be in 2019-2020 when a handful of these new planes have finally arrived.

If they continue to expand like they have done lately, then I could imagine that they will soon be shopping for 5+ years lease contracts for additional 757s or maybe 737NGs to close the gap until roughly 2020 when these new planes have arrived in significant numbers.